Iron County register., 1887-12-29
NUMBER Is.
As to Local Option.

But upon the question whether O
not whisky can be had for medica
purposes, we herewith publish tn
opinion of Judge VIM. Carter, of Farm
ington, lawyer whose skill an,
ability in his profession is recognize,
both by lawyers and those uninitiate,
| in the secrets and mysteries of the law
JUDGE H. B. LEDBETTER, sec'y, &C.:
DEAR SIR:-ln answer to your inquiry as t
whether The adoption of the Local Optic
law by any county in this State prohibits tn
sale OF Intoxicating liquors of any kind b.
duly licensed druggists or pharmacists, ,upol
the prescription of a regularly registered an,
practicing physician; or will the adoption o
| such law prohibit them from selling such Ii
No!
First, because there is no general repeal
ing clause in the Local Option law repealin,
all inconsistent laws.
Secondly, because the same General As
sembsy tnat passed the Local Option law. b,
an act approved March "a, 1887, (see laws o
1887, page 1922 continued in force or, / nigh
say, re-enacted the law of 1883 governin.
druggists and pharmacists. And more thai
this, the same General Assembly, at tn,
same session, passed a law in relation t.
physicians prescribing Intoxicating liquors
&c. lSee laws of 1887, page 214.)
This being true, we are led to inquire AZ
to what is the rule of statutory construction
in such cases.
Statutes in pari naate,Sa, that is, statue.
passed upon the same subject matter, mus
be constructed with reference to each other
"All acts in pari nadterid, said the Great
English Jurist, Lord Mansfield, sare to be
taken together, as If they were one law.
And they must be so taken and SO construed
unless they are so inconsistent that they car
not stand together.
"Now, let us apply this test of statutory
construction in relation to these laws: Sec
tlon OF the Local Option law provides that
II the votes cast at any election, &C., be
against the sale of intoxicating liquors, 'it
shall not be lawful for any person, &c, tn
directly OF indirectly sell, give away or bar
ter in any manner whatever any kind of in
toxicating alcohol in any quantity &c.
"Now, testing this section of the Local
Option law In connection with the other laws
referred to blythe cahons of statutory con-
struction, the law would read thus: 1T
shall not be lawful for any person, &C., to
directly or indirectly sell, give away, &c. ,ex-
cept duly. licensed druggists or pharmacists,
on written prescriptions, &C., of some
regularly registered and practicing physic-
ian." Then the two laws harmonize, as the
Legislature which passed them intended they
should.
The Sth section Of the Local Option law in,
relation TO the sale by druggists or pharma-
cists OF pure alcohol for medical purposes, is
ablfng them to sell. For said section does
not require any prescription in order to au-
thorizc the druggist or pharmacist to sell
pure alcohol. Nor should 1t do so. Why
should physician be called npon to pre-.
scribe pure alcohol for ''Art, Scientific and
Mechanical purposes?" Better call upon
some one else. Moreover, the words ''pure
alcohol" dc not appear in the drug law.
Very respectfully, WIN. CARTER.
Now, Judge Carter said that the
local option law was constitu tional
though others differed with him; and
the Supreme Court Of the State of Mis-
souri, in its opinion, delivered on De-
cember 18th last, sustained him and
held that 1t was constitutional-they
standing four to one in favor of it's
constitutionality.
Then, if he was right in that, and
knowing his learning as a lawyer,
may we not take his construction of
the local option law in connection with
the druggist law, enacted by the same
and upon the same subject
matter (whisky), as, also, correct.
And in addition we give for the con-
of the reader q slight refer
ence to some cases decided by the Su-
preme Court of Missouri, and, as yet,
and still the taaD, sustain
Ing Judge Carter:
GA general prohibition is not incon-
sistent with q special indulgence, and
q special indulgence is not repealed by
q general prohibition, though the lat
ter is subsequent In time to the form
er,n A. d. 1873, Smith VS.. Clark coun-
ty, 81 Mo, p. 5S. Patterson's Digest
Laws, s25. The local option law was
in April Iaws 1887, page
179) and the present druggist law was
approved in March LaWs 1887, page
Repeats by implication are not fav-
ored (1872, Glasgow VS.. Tindell, so
Mo-, p. so. 1873, McVey VS.. McVey,
Is Mo-, p. 4O6.s Pat. Dig. Laws S2O.
The doctrine that repeats by impli-
cation is not to be favored, is applica-
BILE where an effort is made to repeal
q special provision by Implication of
general statue. State VS.. DeRar, 5S
Mo-, $40; Pat. Dig. Laws s22. IT ap-
pears hat the local option law is gen.
eral, and the druggists act is by its
terms special, in that it applies to
class.
The law does not favor the repeal of
a statue by implication. 1867, State
VS.. Macon county court, Al Mo-, 453;
1870, st. Louis VS.. Independent ms.
Co., II, 1854; 1871, State vs.. Fiala, 80.
So that it may be seen from above
letter and authorities quoted in sup
port thereof that druggists, upon the
prescription of a regularly registered
may sell liquor for medical
he being liable if he sells
prescription.
The Supreme Count of the State of
Missouri, in speaking of the matter,
uses the following language: at is
insisted that the law repeals the phar-
macist and druggist law and Is on
that account unconstitutional. It will
be time enough to determine that
question when a case Is presented
calling for it's determination .''-M,s-
soari Republican, December 21th, 1887,
page l.
It has been urged by some that the
county would become bankrupt if by
voting down the saloons we lost the
revenue incident to their being icens-
I'd.
Waving the question of weighing
drops of blood against pennyweights
Of gold. and gain against the wall of
the broken heart and the widows tear,
we proceed to examine into this ques-
hOn of finances and how our county
affairs would be affected by adoption
Of local option.
We call attention to the fact that for
many years the levy for county pur-
possesses has been forty cents ON the
hundred dollars, until this year.
Section 5442, r. s. of Mo-, A. d.
1879, under head of dramshops) shows
II. Il, - H.. ~